Navnath Kanhu Dukle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026IA/4855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Navnath Kanhu Dukle v. State of Maharashtra; suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 354 IPC; Sections 7 and 8 POCSO Act 2012; short term sentence; no misuse of bail liberty; P.R. Bond Rs.30,000/-; Shivkumar Dige, J.; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Interim Application 4855 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal 1252 of 2024; dated 5 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the applicant's sentence and enlargement on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; bail bond to be furnished before the Trial Court. ¶¶23

Navnath Kanhu Dukle vs State of Maharashtra and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's sentence should be suspended and he should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

¶¶10

Court's answer

Finding the imposed sentence to be a short term sentence, noting the Trial Court had granted bail and suspended sentence during the appeal period, that the applicant was on bail during the trial without misusing the liberty, and that disposal of the Appeal may take time, the Court suspended the applicant's sentence and enlarged him on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, the bail bond to be furnished before the Trial Court.

¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single Judge (Shivkumar Dige, J.) disposed of an Interim Application in Criminal Appeal No. 1252 of 2024 filed by Navnath Kanhu Dukle seeking suspension of sentence and bail. The applicant had been convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and, in default, one month's simple imprisonment. The Trial Court had already granted bail and suspended the sentence during the appeal period; the applicant was on bail throughout the trial, had not misused the liberty, and had deposited the fine amount. Holding that the sentence imposed was a short term sentence and that it may take time to dispose of the Appeal, the Court suspended the applicant's sentence and enlarged him on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, the bail bond to be furnished before the Trial Court.

¶1

109-IA-4855-2024.doc..doc

¶2

Rohit Ghuge

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4855 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 2024

¶5

Navnath Kanhu Dukle … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Afsar Ansari i/b Mr. Aamir Shaikh for the Appellant. Mr. P. P. Jadhav, APP for State.

¶7

Ms. Nazneen Khatri , Appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 5^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By this Application, the applicant is seeking suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of appeal.

¶11

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has been convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Learned counsel for the

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

109-IA-4855-2024.doc..doc

¶14

Rohit Ghuge

¶15

applicant submits that the Trial Court has granted bail to the applicant and suspended his sentence during the appeal period. During the trial, the applicant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty granted to him. The applicant has deposited the fine amount, hence, requested to allow the application.

¶16

Learned APP strongly objected to allow the application.

¶17

I have heard both learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and order.

¶18

The sentence imposed on the applicant is a short term sentence. The Trial Court granted bail to the applicant and suspended his sentence during the appeal period. During the trial, the applicant was on bail. He has not misused the liberty granted to him. It may take time to dispose of the Appeal.

¶19

In view of above, the applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal on the following terms and conditions.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21